User talk:Mar4d/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mar4d. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dear Khan !

Thanks for your generous assistance, you rock. You have suggested a better name for my article Hazara Killings in Pakistan Since 2001 to Persecution of Hazaras I luv it. Two thing I wanted to talk about 1. The word Hazaras should be replaced with Hazara people grammatically correct (or famous) and secondly the in Pakistan should be added to it because I was intending to write about persecutions in Pakistan only. I was thinking of writing another one by the same name only replacing Pakistan with Afghanistan, If we don't separate the list (Afg and Pak) then the article would be too long, I assume so. What do you think? Hazara-Birar (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. I think if Hazara people is gramatically correct, then the article title should definitely be renamed. However, having said this, it is my opinion that the article should cater to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is because having it all in one article is consistent - take a look at Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Shia Muslims etc. All these only have one general article rather than Persecution of Muslims in xyz country, Persecution of Hindus in xyz country etc. I do not think that the article will get too long; if it does, we can always improvise some ideas later on but for now, I think you should focus on building it up. Having both Afghanistan and Pakistan in the same article will also be more consistent for readers because they can gain an understanding of the persecution of Hazara people in one general article. I suggest having a "background" section perhaps which delves into the history of the persecution, touching on issues such as racism or treatment during the Taliban era and then moving onto recent events in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mar4d (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, really appreciate your comments. Hazara-Birar (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I've been asked to assist with evaluating copyright concerns with some of your content. The first thing I found was that you had recreated this article for some reason, even though it was deleted as the creation of a known serial copyright infringer. This is a problem under our requirements for attribution to begin with, but in this case is complicated by the fact that you have knowingly restored the work of said serial copyright infringer. His history of copyright infringement is explained in a link from the deletion log. Having recreated it, you are solely responsible for any copyright problems with it, and the article contains duplication of at least one source: [1]. There is nothing to indicate that this content is public domain. We must verify that this material is public domain, or it must be deleted. No content added by this contributor can be assumed to be safe.

The article has been blanked. You will have one week to rewrite it in your own words if you wish to retain it. You may use language copied from identified sources only if you can verify that the source is public domain or compatibly licensed or if it can be handled in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. If it is public domain or compatibly licensed, it must be handled in accord with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If you cannot locate a source from which material placed by this contributor was copied, we cannot use it. We cannot presume that he copied only some of the article.

I will let you know if I see any other issues. I do appreciate that you have gone back to attribute splits you have made. I hope that you have addressed all of these, as this is a legal requirement. If not, please make sure that you do so now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You received my notes and moved them to User:Mar4d/Sandbox 4 on 23 September 2011. You have put hours into editing Wikipedia since then, but have taken no steps to clean up the problems of which you were notified.

Since specific copied content was pointed out to you in Tourism in Balochistan, Pakistan, but you have done nothing to address it, the article is now blanked pending your repair. Copying may not be limited to the identified source; no content should be restored without your first checking carefully to make sure that you did not copy any of the other material from somewhere else. You have taken no efforts that I can see to identify the articles you copied in Pakistani tea culture (if there are any beyond the one I pointed out to you) or to attribute that copying as you are required to do; Economy of Lahore remains unattributed as well. Never mind the time you should have been putting into finding other issues, the ones that were pointed out to you should have been a priority for you to address.

If you do not begin cleaning up the copyright problems you have created, I will block you in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used."

I have not yet decided if a contributor copyright investigation is necessary here, but your display of indifference to the copyright problems you have created leads me to concern that we cannot rely on you to fix them yourself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You said that I have a week to fix up the issue, so I want to take my time. The reason I moved your messages into the sandbox temporarily is so that I could patiently formulate my replies over there once I'm done and also to currently avoid this talk page from cluttering up and getting too long (which I find distractive). It's got nothing to do with indifference. Mar4d (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm on it. Give me a couple of hours starting from now. Mar4d (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood; you have a week to fix the issues that are blanked. This does not mean you have a week to begin repairing the issue in total. This should be a high priority for you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mar4d,

My name is Juliana de Melo Bezerra. I am a phd student at ITA (www.ita.br). I am doing a research regarding members’ motivation in virtual communities, and my case study is Wikipedia. I would like your collaboration in my research. If you are interested, I will send you some questions.

Hey Julia, hit me up too! I gots lots of experience and I will share it as a paid intern for yo' project! Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why you stopped attempting to attribute splits. :/ While you did not do it correctly when you established this article on 26 May 2011, which was taken from here (you did not provide the link in edit summary), you did place the proper tag on the talk page: [2]. You even did a proper edit summary here in May 21 2011. I don't know why you did not, then, provide attribution for this July 2011 article. Or this August 2011 article.

I see you've gone back to fix attribution issues for those two and some other articles, but you have not fixed attribution issues in all of your unattributed splits. For instance, this one. You labeled it "extracts" when you created it; I've identified at least one of the sources from which you extracted: [3]. And this one, which split from [4].

Please take the time to evaluate your edit history to be sure that you are given proper attribution in any splits you've created. (I will hold off on further evaluation to give you a bit more time to do this.) It's really important that this be dealt with promptly and that, for whatever reason you stopped giving attributing after May 2011, you do not stop again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have provided attributions for the Pakistani tea culture and Economy of Lahore articles. The Pakistani tea culture article was only started with info extracted from the Tea culture article; any other words that may have been included in the article other than that info is self-written. The same goes for the Economy of Lahore article, which was initially started with information copied from the Lahore article although now looks much different since it has been expanded.

As regards to your comment above, are you talking about providing edit summaries? It's just that I wasn't quite clear about copyrights back then (mainly the part about copying content within Wikipedia) and thought it was perfectly okay to paste or cut content from articles. I think it is perhaps this reason that I might not have been that serious about providing attributions. But this has obviously changed now and I will definitely make sure next time that when a split or merge occurs, I provide an adequate edit summary for it and also list the attribution template on the talk page of the concerned article. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing attribution for these. Please be sure to review your other articles to see if there is content you have copied that was not properly attributed. This is important as it may prevent the need to open a WP:CCI. These are opened when it is necessary to involve the community in identifying and cleaning up issues. I really would prefer not to go that route, if it can be avoided, as I think the largest problem we are looking at here is lack of attribution in splits. These should be easily repaired. If it will help you, I can provide you with a list of your edits so that you can more easily see what articles you have edited that may contain splits. (My comment above has to do with confusion about the fact that you used to use the attribution template on article talk pages - [May 2011 - , but stopped - July 2011, August 2011. I'm glad that you are more familiar with requirements now and appreciate your taking the necessary steps to help repair the problem.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the reason I stopped (forgot rather) to provide attributions is because I was not overtly familiar and serious with copyright policy. Please go ahead and provide the list of edits if you feel that it will be helpful. Mar4d (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking of re-adding the following:

"There has been ubiquitous media coverage since the War on Terror, both factual and satirical, associating British Pakistanis with extremism. However, such individuals represent only a radicalised minority who exist among several notable British Pakistanis."

The reason that I would like to re-add this is so that the article can comply with WP:lead. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British Pakistanis/1 states that the lead section does not fully summarise the article per WP:Lead. Thanks, Sansonic (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My two cents on this issue - I had removed this sentence because: 1) It sounds opinionative and speculative 2) There was no source given to cite the fact that there has been "ubiquitous" media coverage associating British Pakistanis with extremism and 3) I really think that having this sentence in the lead paragraphs is pushing the WP:POV. How does it exactly help summarise the whole article (or the broader question: how does this help summarise all of British Pakistanis?) The only place I can find in the whole long article relevant to this sentence is the small subsection called "allegations of extremism." If anything, I would support this as the opening sentence of that section instead, where it would actually seem to look more appropriate. Moreover, if the sentence itself states that "such individuals represent only a radicalised minority", why is the fact being given so much undue WP:WEIGHT then, by being placed right in the start of the article? As I've said, it really pushes a certain WP:POV by being afforded importance in the lead; I can also see big sections in the article talking about middle-class British Pakistanis, their contributions to British politics, their work in the food industry or their contributions to sport (such as cricket) yet I don't see anything in the lead talking about them. Mar4d (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

محترم ہم مدیر، السلام علیکم، میں اپنا صارفی صفحہ پھر سے ترتیب دینا چاہتا ہوں
جس کے لئے آپسے گزارش ہے کہ موجودہ صفحہ جو کہ کورا کردیا گیا ہے (blanked out)،
.اسے حذف کر دیا جاۓ . براہ کرم اس میں میری مدد کیجئے یا پھر کسی مجاز شخص کا رابطہ فراہم کیجئے
Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I interpret from the above that you would like your user page to be deleted..is that correct? If you want your user page to be deleted, I think Wikipedia:User pages#Deleting your user page or subpages may help you. You simply have to place the following: {{db-user}} at the top of your page. Mar4d (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I m a wiki user.There is an article on pakistani artist on "Imran Channa" which is being tagged for deletion and copy-violent which is done by one shared IP ( 182.185.234.113) constantly for few days. i want help from the administration for the protection of the page.. Thank u...--Artmartxx (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to file your complaint at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents if you want to involve an admin to look up into this issue. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Reading through your conversation with User:Ironholds above, I noticed that you were concerned that there was no duplication in Tourism in Balochistan, Pakistan. I checked the link, and it is working for me at this point. The Internet Archive machine is notoriously unreliable, so it may come and out it. It is essentially an archived version of this Pakistan government page (the archive dates to January 2010, which predates your creation of that article, obviously, as it was started in August 2011.

I see a few issues with close paraphrasing there. Your article says:

Balochistan was the cradle of the 9,000 year old Mehrgarh civilisation. There are numerous archeological sites dating back to antiquity, hosting valuable cultural treasures that also provide evidence of some of the first invented items. ...In 325 B.C, Alexander the Great passed through the coastal belt of Balochistan, covering a long trail.

The source says:

Balochistan is the cradle of 9000 years old Mehrgarh civilization. There are numerous archeological sites dated back to antiquity, hosting valuable cultural treasures. ....Alexander passed through the coastal belt of Balochistan in 325 B.C covering a long trail.

The document you cite as your source is quite long, so I do not know if there is language borrowed between that source and the government website, but in any event it is handling of previously published text that is somewhat out of keeping with Wikipedia's approach. We are required to rewrite content from scratch if it is under copyright, unless we incorporate brief quotations of non-free text.

Please make sure that language in that article is completely rewritten, whether it draws from the government page or from the longer document you cite. If other language is similarly close, that should be revised as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be closely paraphrased content in this article as well (Indians in Afghanistan). For instance, you write:

Migration from India to Afghanistan occurred during the last several centuries, mainly from the Punjab region. The emigrants mostly belonged to the category of retail shopkeepers and general merchants dealing in clothes and consumer items. They settled down in various parts of Afghanistan, in particular Kabul and Jalalabad. In 1990, it was estimated that there were 45,000 persons of Indian descent in Afghanistan and most of them had become naturalised Afghan citizens.

In this document, page 7, par 2.2., we see the following:

Migration from India to Afghanistan had occured during the last several centuries, mainly from undivided Punjab. The emigrants mostly belonged to the categoy of retail shopkeepers and general merchants dealing in clothes and other consumer items. They settled down in various parts of Afghanistan, in particular Kabul and Jalalabad. In 1990, it was estimated that there were about 45,000 persons of Indian descent in Afghanistan. Most of those persons had become naturalised Afghan citizens.

I'm unsure if the rest of the content follows similarly closely, but given the issue here am blanking the article to give you an opportunity to rewrite it in original language, unless you are able to demonstrate that the content complies with our licensing requirements, in which case it would need only to be attributed in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Since content by nic is not blanket released, I'm afraid that we cannot presume. I know you are familiar with the copyright problems board procedure, as this is not the first article you have had blanked for investigation at that board. If you do not remember the processes, however, they are explained on the template now replacing the article's content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, regarding the Balochistan article, there is a modified version at Talk:Tourism in Balochistan, Pakistan/Temp. I've changed the paragraph into:

Balochistan was the cradle and the centre of the Mehrgarh civilisation which began nine thousand years ago. There are several historical and archeological sites located in the province which date back to ancient times, hosting rich cultural treasures that provide evidence of some of the first invented items.

That looks a lot better and I hope that you would agree it is not as closely paraphrased to the original sentence. The Government of Balochistan source that you have provided is not what I originally used; a copy of the text in this source is in fact written on page 35 of the longer source I used. I have double checked all the other words and have confirmed that there is no word-to-word plagiarised text and that the language used is in own words. The various placenames I have mentioned in the last part of the article is derived from what is written in the source too, but I am quite sure that you would agree the paragraph is differently worded (and that whatever may make it sound similiar to the text in the source is the mention of the placenames - but that is information which cannot be changed, regardless). The fact that only two odd phrases could be found in the whole article which had close (but not exact) paraphrasing with the original quotes pretty much gives credence to my claim that this article does not have excessive copyright violations present in it.Mar4d (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the Indian diaspora in Afghanistan article, there is a modified version (pending approval) that can be accessed at Talk:Indians in Afghanistan/Temp. I have revised and slightly tweaked the four-sentence paragraph into the following:

Emigration from India towards Afghanistan took place in the course of the the last few centuries, mainly from the undivided Punjab region. The Indian emigrants had a background mostly in retail shopkeeping and as general merchants who engaged in the trade of clothes and consumer items. They settled down in different parts of the country, in particular Kabul and Jalalabad. As of 1990, various estimations put the number of Indian origin people in Afghanistan at 45,000; most of these people had been settled in the country for generations and subsequently become naturalised Afghan citizens.

The wording has been improved from its previous form and is quite different from the close paraphrasing which was evident before. You said that you are "unsure if the rest of the content follows similarly closely", but that paragraph is pretty much the main body of the article that would have had any traces of close wording. The two-sentence intro has not been copied, neither has the section titled "relations with society" which talks about attacks on expatriates. Minus that, and the only "rest of the content" you're left with are the "see also", "references" and "external links" headings. Thus, the temporary page can replace the current version. Mar4d (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for working on these. I am writing from work and do not have time to evaluate the details, but I will try to take a look at them later today. --User:Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry; it slipped my mind that you had proposed rewrites. Their listing at WP:CP has brought them to my attention.

Looking at the moment at your proposed rewrite of Talk:Indians in Afghanistan/Temp, while this is a big step in the right direction, you are still appropriating the structure of your source. Copyright does not rest only in the literal language (if it did, it would not be a copyright violation to translate something from a foreign language into English without permission of the copyright holder, as every word is changed). Creativity also goes into selecting facts and their order of presentation. In this particular case, your source says the following:

1. Moved from India → Afghanistan in time, mainly from.
2. Emigrants mostly did this for a living.
3. Settled particularly in these two places.
4. In 1990 this many.
5. Naturalised.

This is your proposed rewrite:

Emigration from India towards Afghanistan took place in the course of the the last few centuries, mainly from the undivided Punjab region. The Indian emigrants had a background mostly in retail shopkeeping and as general merchants who engaged in the trade of clothes and consumer items. They settled down in different parts of the country, in particular Kabul and Jalalabad. As of 1990, various estimations put the number of Indian origin people in Afghanistan at 45,000; most of these people had been settled in the country for generations and subsequently become naturalised Afghan citizens.

It says the following:

1. Moved from India → Afghanistan in time, mainly from.
2. Emigrants mostly did this for a living.
3. Settled particularly in these two places.
4. In 1990 this many.
5. Naturalised.

This is a problem we run into when we attempt to address copyright problems by rewriting sentence by sentence instead of by revising the whole. We risk creating a derivative work. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing gives some suggestions for rewriting to avoid inadvertently retaining the structure of the original. It is always helpful to intersperse information from multiple sources in one passage to avoid simply lifting their structure, but if no other sources are available, you can generally find a way to do it, although you may lose some detail. A good approach is to focus on the information you want and find a different way of presenting it. For instance, looking at the article and the facts, we might write:

The number of people living in Afghanistan who have roots in India is not precisely known. It was estimated at 45,000 in 1990. Most of these people were citizens whose ancestors emerged from the Punjab region in the last several centuries, clothing merchants and shopkeepers who settled heavily particularly in Kabul and Jalalabad.

(If any of that text is of interest to you, you are welcome to incorporate it. I hereby waive my right to attribution. :)) From that, you might easily go on to describe the depopulation that followed the Taliban takeover.

While another administrator may feel differently (perhaps not, since none have taken it up at WP:CP), I believe that the material needs revision. Again, you are welcome to use the text I offer as an example as a base. I'll look at the other rewrite you offer now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your other revision suffers from the same challenge of attempting to overwrite the problem rather than, as Wikipedia:Copyrights requires, writing "from scratch." Again, this is a risk for producing derivative works. Can you try to find a different way to present the material that isn't based on their structure? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Sardar Ibrahim Khan family requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I recently made a template, Template:Airports in Bangladesh and I'm kinda stuck with a few issues.

• I want it to be in two groups, International and Domestic. I tried dividing them myself but I ended up messing up the whole template. Can you please divide them? The first three, DAC, CGP and ZYL are International and the rest are domestic.

• I want a picture beside the title, Airport Symbol, this one should be good. Can you please insert it? I tried and failed.

Thanks! Zahir (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Salaam. I made the changes per the request above. The size of the image next to the title is set at 23px although you can change the resolution to whatever you find appropriate. Let me know if there's anything you still need help on. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me out with the template!! I appreciated that. Allah Hafeez. Zahir (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Mar4d (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,dear Mar4d,can you please help to add proper lists of category to article, Haider Qureshi.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Very very thanks,shukria.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanx.. I would appreciate if you guide me how to categorize my articles. Secondly tell me how to get away from AFD, I have tried to revise the write-up so many times but i keep on getting same remarks from some of the users. Thanx again for supporting new users like me :) Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Assalam-o-Alaikum,

I have gotten myself into template trouble, again.

This time it's with this one Member Schools of Round Square. I tried to follow the technique you used to make groups and it kinda worked, but the problem is there are suppose to be 24 groups and I made all of them but only 20 seem to appear.

Can you do anything about it? I saw a few templates with sub-groups, can you try and make subgroups for this template? I tried studying how it's done, but it's really confusing. If you can, please divide them into five groups: 1) Africa 2) Asia 3) America 4) Australasia 5) Europe

Then, put the countries and it's schools into the groups according to which continent they belong to.

Thanks! Zahir (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a certain limit as to how many groups can be listed on a navigation box template. It might be this reason that there are only 20 fields that seem to appear while the remaining four are not displayed. Using subgroups would certainly be a viable and convenient option in this case. Making subgroups is not that complicated, it just involves filling out a 'navbox subgroup' coding in place of the "list" parameter. Before making any changes, I organised a draft at User:Mar4d/Sandbox 4. Is that the kind of thing you're after? You're welcome to make any changes or edits and copy-paste the documentation to the actual template page if you're satisfied. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sub-groups were exactly what I wanted! Thanks a lot! Zahir (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for fixing that template! It takes a lot of trouble to make something like that. Zahir (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hehe.. you're welcome. It's nothing out of the ordinary, just a few pasted bits here and there; you can do it too once you get the idea. Help is a free service. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please help,adding category to Jadeed Adab.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• May you check also category to Ahfaz ur Rahman

• Thanks,I appreciate your edits.Cheers.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

remove Stephen P. Cohen definition. explain that the military has the power to enforce marital law instead of what you write "secret power to dissolve power with out anyone knowing" that just makes it sound like something hidden and illegal . its a constitutional power the military has as a helper of last resort to deal with corrupt politicians etc. the zia doctrine on afghanistan has no relevance a) it was dropped in 1998 b) zia is just one person his ideas dont need to make it to this page its just one random policy.....make thoose changes, and I will agree to your other points :) . --Multan47 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You had added a "wikiproject:czech republic" template to the Nargis fakhri article talk page. She hails from New York and is an american citizen. However, as most Pakistanis happen to be recent migrants into the U.S, the "Wikiproject:Pakistan" template is certainly necessary.
But what is the need for a "czech republic template"? Is her mother just a recent migrant into the country? If not, then that template could be removed, as there are too many such ones for a stub class article. For example:take a look at the Sylvester Stallone page. Every white american has a european ancestry. Likewise Stallone is of patrilineal italian origin. Now that doesn't mean that the page would be of any importance to wikiproject:italy. His ancestors have been in the U.S for more than 400 years. Although all of them remember their ancestral lineage, they are simply identified as white americans. Likewise, if Nargis' mother is just a "white american of czech ancestry", you don't have to keep the "czech republic" template - it could well be removed. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any indication of whether her mother was an old settler or even an American citizen. The article mentions her mother as "Czech", thus I thought that this also made Fakhri as Czech (maternally). You can be bold however and remove the template if you feel it is unneccessary and that her mother indeed is a White American of Czech ancestry only. Mar4d (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mar4d

As you read on the instructions at {{Recent death}}, the threshold for edit frequency is when "perhaps a hundred or more" editors edit the article on a single day. In the past 15 hours (there were no edits in the previous 9 hours) 23 editors have made changes to the article. Scaled up to a day, that is 37 editors, not close to the guidance given in the template.

If edit frequency by additional editors increases to something closer to the threshold stated in the instructions, please feel free to re-add the template. Otherwise, don't.

Thank you, ^Bongo_matic 02:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Conderning the change you made [5]: In 2010 the Martial Arts Project reviewed (and improved and deleted) many articles: see Wikipedia:MAAR. We made much use of the Catscan tool [6] for searching the category tree under Martial Arts. As part of the review, we made some order in the categorization. Categories are useful when they separate things. At that time, we separated all the categories of people from all the categories of martial arts. In the category of people, we added a 'see also' to point to the martial art. In the category of martial art, we added a 'see also' to point to the people category. It would be nice to keep this structure: could you undo the above change? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! jmcw (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, As per my knowledge, I requested and ensured that Ahmad Nadeem Qasimi is renamed to Ahmad Nadeem Qasmi. Accordingly, I renamed his autograph on Commons which I had uploaded. Please provide your inputs about the appropriateness of the spelling. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Mar4d, are you reading this? Do you have your views or not on the subject. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this. Regarding the spelling, yes, you are correct, Qasmi seems to be the common spelling rather than Qasimi. A simple Google search verifies this, and as I can see, the page has evidently been rightly moved. Mar4d (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable information. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Page 32, I have given the source...I know you havnt read the book so why did you change the information ? that is a clear violation of wiki policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multan47 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

also I remember Bhuttos grave has the name of the 4 Caliphs,Shias only accept the 4th and skip the first 3. Whilst Bhutto's wife was a shia, inter marriage is (was?) common in rural sindh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multan47 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. the religion of Zulficar Ali Bhutto cannot be arbitrarily changed --Multan47 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mar4d. You have new messages at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001.
Message added 01:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that most of these Pakistani related images are stolen from google? For example, you can see "google" in the middle of this one, meaning it was copied from google. The same uploader who stole that image from google was in 1965 war with India and shot this photo? This one is a standard Pakistani passport style photo, and the description states :Copyright © 2002 Senate of Pakistan www.senate.gov.pk/Main.asp" but no permission is given from the author. The description on this one states "Hand drawn by Syed Amjad Hussain. Widely available online" and again no permission is given. I find it very hard to believe that Wikipedia editor Raza0007 (talk · contribs) went to take photos of Pakistan's nuclear missiles at close up, and at different times and different places. I carefully check each image and then nominate it so please don't revert my nominations.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"I carefully check each image and then nominate it". No. I don't think so. If that was the case, you wouldn't be adding irrelevant, unverified tags on pictures which have clearly expired copyright according to Pakistani law. You're clearly going around and trying to get as many Pakistani images deleted as possible by adding incorrect tags. This is vandalism and I have to revert you. As for the pictures of the cruise missiles, I'm seeing what your seeing: Raza0007 (talk · contribs) uploaded those pictures and has given correct licensing details. Those pictures are not taken "at different times and different places" but rather at the same parade. He's given the exact dates of the photos and has even given the source (alas, I doubt you checked). If you bothered to read the details more carefully, you would notice that he clearly mentions that it is a free image taken by the ISPR, which is a media wing of the Pakistani military and that he is merely the uploader putting these free images on Wikipedia. I advise you to take a break from tagging photos and leave the job for experts who clearly know their stuff in regards to image licensing regulations and don't go around blindly putting dubious tags. Also, stop sockpuppeting. Mar4d (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You doubt I checked? Just so you know, I'm a perfectionist, so don't doubt me. Are you trying to intimidate me not to nominate copyrighted Pakistani images? You need to learn exactly what the defintion at "PD-Pakistan" explains. It only permits old photos that were "published by Pakistan" (i.e. published in Pakistani news papers, books, magazines, etc.) and proof must be provided. It does not include old unpublished photos as you wrongly assume, the license tag would've said this is over 60-yr-old Pakistani photo if that was the case. The ISPR license is forged/fictitious, made up by Raza0007, and you don't need to speak for him let him come here. Pakistan does not allow permission for their images to be distributed for free and without their permission. Next time I'll email admins to delete the images so that way you won't be able play revert games. Now quit playing around and stop wasting my time.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And what do the picture details say? It was published by the NWFP government and also expires copyright. I wonder if the NWFP government comes under the definition of "published by Pakistan"; wait, no, the NWFP is located in Mars or Pluto. It also beats me how the "the ISPR license is forged/fictitious" when the pictures are clearly taken by the ISPR and are free use. I challenge you to provide proof of the ISPR pictures not being available for free use. If you want to go around and add fictitous no-source tags on every image you find, go ahead. I would have no option other than to take this to the admins and complain about your zero knowledge of licensing regulations. And I was merely stating the obvious that you are a sockpuppet who is continously violating and abusing Wikipedia editing privileges. If that comes under intimidation, then so be it. Mar4d (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

An uploader can write all kinds of stuff in the description of an image but there has to be "evidence of publication", where is this? Where is this ISPR free use? ISPR is Pakistani Armed Forces and where do they state that they allow their images to be free to everyone?--NorthernPashtun (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove image license/source concern tags without explaining how they are incorrect. While I can't speak to all of these cases, at a minimum the removal of the tag from File:Awk.jpg was incorrect - it claims to both be public domain and copyrighted by the Senate of Pakistan. Both cannot be true, and the tag is appropriate until the issue is resolved. Please be aware that blindly removing tags is disruptive and may lead to a WP:BLOCK if you persist. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mar4d. You have new messages at Philosopher's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why are you putting ridiculous high numbers? You are ignoring the UNHCR and the Government of Pakistan after they clearly explained that a total of 1.7 million Afghans live in Pakistan? Why are you raising the number to so high? You need to stop using old sources for current estimates. Go take a rest and stop pushing your POV on this. On the one hand you wish to see all the Afghans leave from Pakistan as soon as possible and on the other hand you are deceptively raising their numbers to ridiculous higher nonsense figures. Also, the Durrani Empire is what is today Politics of Afghanistan (the modern state of Afghanistan) please don't pretend like you don't know this.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the official estimates do not take into account the unregistered number of Afghans in the country or those who have somehow managed to get Pakistani passports and identity cards. Based on this, the numbers seem fairly realistic. The article is dated 2009, which is not too old. If there's anyone who's trying to push POV and is adding a load of feel-good fantasy to the article, it's you who is intent on shrinking down the numbers of Afghans in Punjab and Sindh and at the same time calling Peshawar and Quetta (KP and Balochistan) as Afghan cities. I understand your motives and agenda. Talking about UNHCR, this UNHCR source which discusses Afghan refugees in Quetta mentions their total number in Balochistan as being 769,26. This UNHCR number is exactly the same figure which the article being used as a ref quotes. Thus, this article is credible and corroborates with UNHCR. Mar4d (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

First, stop removing a dispute tags when someone adds it. Second, Peshawar and Quetta were in fact cities of Afghanistan in the past. why are you disputing this? The reason we add this important info is to let the readers know why the Afghan refugees feel at home when they are in Pakistan, particularly in Peshawar and in Quetta. Finally, the one Pakistani report that you cherry-picked is talking about the pre-repatriation period estimates and you are either confused about that or you are trying to raise the number of Afghans for your own personal reasons, and in that you are ignoring the UNHCR and the Government of Pakistan. How can large number of Afghan nationals obtain Pakistani passport or Computerized National Identity Card when it requires not only own birth certificate but also father's birth certificate and alot of investigation is done before the government of Pakistan issues such documents. You are POV pushing by stating that Afghans made Pakistani IDs unless you have clear and convincing evidence to this. There may be a few cases of this as is done in other countries but not as you are trying to put it. Also, I'm not lowering the number of Afghans. I'm trying to put accurate numbers that is consistent with all the latest sources. People who mislead, lie, conceal or twist information end up going to hell and I sure don't wanna end up there. You've been using Wikipedia for a long time and you should know by now that lies don't stay for long, someone comes and corrects it.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is not the only one which claims that there are 3 million Afghan refugees; I am interested in the source only because it gives a break-up of the population. There are loads of others too which support it, and besides, I have already pointed out that this source corroborates and agrees with UNHCR (read the Balochistan figures), which suggests that the estimates for other provinces are likely to be appropriate as well. I have already said that the UNHCR figures are only official estimates and do not include the huge number of unregistered Afghans, those with fake or no IDs and those who were born in Pakistan and are only connected to Afghanistan due to their parents. The UNHCR estimates cannot be taken at face value; we need to include both figures, including the official estimates and the unofficial estimates such as this report. Take a look for example at Bangladeshis in Pakistan which gives different stats for the number of migrants or the British Pakistani article which gives population estimates of 2001 and 2011. It is perfectly acceptable to quote more than one population figure. Somehow, you seem to have a problem with quoting alternative figures due to some personal agenda. Mar4d (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, please tone down the history lectures and nationalist/irredentist claims a bit. Peshawar and Quetta are Pakistani cities, period. Modern day Afghanistan starts and ends at the Durand Line, it is supposed to be like that and it will continue to be like that and this is the only POV the article should reflect. Mar4d (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I prepared my argument on the talk page so you can start commenting there instead. You are assuming that there are Afghan citizens who made fake Pakistani IDs. Doing this crime is extremely difficult to do successfully. First, this requires alot of money because alot of bribes must be paid. Second, Afghans were all finger printed using biometrics, photographed, and their photo, fingerprints, names, and all other important information was stored in computers since 2006, which was completed in 2007, with 2.15 million total number. There is no record of new Afghan refugees arriving to Pakistan from Afghanistan after that date. They are leaving from Pakistan every year and that's why now it's 1.7 million left. You mentioned the Afghans who were born in Pakistan in the last 20 yrs. They were obviously included in the registration process, that's why even that 4.5 million left from Pakistan between 2002 and 2007, there are still 1.7 remaining. These remaining ones are mostly the long time Afghans, the 3 million that the 1988 New York Time mentions. Afghanistan's population in 1979 was only 15 million and today it's 29 million. You need to stop forcing yourself to believe that there are 3 million Afghan aliens living in Pakistan, the Pakistani Pashtuns may be called ethnic Afghans but they are not Afghan citizens. Don't involve Bangladeshis or other refugees living in Pakistan because those groups are not registered and well monitored the way the Afghans are by the UN and US agencies.

About your last comment, I have no idea what you're trying to say. There was no Pakistan before 1947, there was only Afghanistan and British India. Afghanistan's history does not start from 1893 when the Durand Line was established, it starts from 1709, or more particularly from 1747 when the Afghans conquered the entire region and ruled it for about 100 years. In 1893 is when British India (what is now Pakistan) became free from Afghan political influence. We have to write the history part everywhere as it happened and we cannot censor information that some particular group of people may not enjoy.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the modern state, not the medieval or historical empires. Afghanistan in medieval times had no proper geographic definition as the different empire's boundaries constantly changed. In that case, Pakistan and India were part of many different empires and Afghanistan was also briefly under Soviet rule recently and was also frequently attacked by the Indians. Does this mean that Afghan cities belong to Russia and India? Peshawar and Quetta may be part of historical empires which had their bases in Afghanistan but they are not relevant to the modern day state of Afghanistan. The impression that you are trying to create in the article is that Balochistan and KP belong to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (nothing can be more twisted and tainted from the truth). It's like me writing an article on British expatriates on Pakistan and claiming that modern-day Pakistan belongs to the UK. Pakistan is a region that was under different empires historically, due to its location between South Asia, Central Asia and greater Middle East. However, today it is an independent sovereign nation, shaped by the outcome of several historical events, and not a colony of some foreign power. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan are not foreign territory, just like Afghanistan is not part of Russia anymore. Mar4d (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please learn the definition of vandalism at WP:NOTVAND, and do not use it for good faith contributions as it's uncivil and incorrect. If you're still feeling weak-kneed, check out WP:DV for a better explanation. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I see you've ignored my polite request. So I'll state it another way: if I see you referring to another user's edits as vandalism again when you're in a content dispute with them (i.e., when it's not vandalism), i will block you for making personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I reported you here because you not only reverted me over 7 times, but you are tooo much of an anti-Afghan. You need help my friend.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, including violating WP:3RR, as you did at Afghans in Pakistan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, this is in respect to the conflict and edits documented at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Afghans in Pakistan, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, brought to my attention at User talk:Philosopher#Afghans in Pakistan. I am sorry to issue the block, but this dispute seemed to have gotten well out of hand. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could go to Talk:Afghans in Pakistan#Distorting and falsifying and explain why you think your version of the smuggling information is better than NorthernPashtun's and respond to his description of why he thinks his version is better? While I appreciate that you disagree over what should be in the article, it might make things better if you discussed your edits. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Will reply soon. Mar4d (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Afghans in Pakistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Muhajir

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please help me promote an article for me into a Good Article. Please follow the instructions at Talk:Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing/GA2 Thanks --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article must need a little improvement, could you go and help me please? --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for bringing this to my notice. Unfortunately, I've been a but busy lately. I will go over the article once I'm free. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted the page I created with the heading as above, and redirected it to the Pakistan–United States skirmishes page. I see why you have done this, however, I disagree. All other events on the timeline of the Pakistan–United States skirmishes page have been important but incidental and have not resulted in loss of life. Today's incident was massively different as it left 26 people dead. This does not deserves to have a few lines at the bottom of this page. It deserves to have its own page, and, if it were up to me, it would be on the 'In the news' section of the front page of Wikipedia. As you are from Peshawar you should understand the gravity of the ituation, and I urge you to reconsider. However, I leave the decision in your hands. Thanks, Stephen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.devincenzi (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I do understand the gravity of the situation (actually, I nominated it in a section at WP:ITN/C; you are welcome to add your opinion there), and would like to clarify that I have redirected the content to Pakistan–United States skirmishes because that is supposed to be the main article for documenting all incidents (minor or major) which have taken place and because it is consistent to add the incident on a page where readers have access to background history and all the other confrontations that have occurred in the past. The Pakistan–United States skirmishes article is not very long, therefore there's plenty of room for the Nov. 26 incident to be added. I agree that the current two-sentence summary is inadequate and invite you to help expand the section. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

With more content being added to the Salala incident sub-heading on the Pakistan–United States skirmishes page, there appears to be a growing significance for this event in Pakistani and International news media and forums – this alone qualifies it for a separate Wikipedia article entry. I suggest Salala incident to be the primary article source (i.e., not redirecting to the Pakistan–United States skirmishes page). You can still retain a brief description of the incident on the skirmishes page but then linking to the main article via the usage of the {{Main}} template. In its current form, the supposedly brief entry on the skirmishes page has overgrown all other previous events – thus making the skirmishes page seem more like the Salala incident page. Therefore, I suggest for a re-structuring and movement of content from the Salala sub-heading to its own article. I second the initial suggestion by Stephen. Cheers -- Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 11:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am very glad to see it has been put on the front page now! It must be big news in Peshawar, yes? --S.devincenzi (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)